Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton. I hope the debate will be an interesting one and one in which I hope there will be an exchange of views.

There are a couple of points I wish to explain at the beginning. This Bill was prepared over a number of weeks. There are those who think I looked for an opportune time to prepare it when there was the threat of a strike, but it so happened that it occurred at the same time. A lot of work has gone into the Bill in terms of what happens in other countries.

The supply of water and electricity to homes and businesses in this day and age is a basic and an essential service. The threat of an ESB strike was a real cause for concern in communities around the country last week. I was particularly concerned about the impact a strike would have on the elderly and in homes in which somebody was sick or being cared for. Many homes still depend on electricity as their sole source of heating and an ESB strike would have a major impact on them. On top of this, Ireland's reputation as a place in which to do business has suffered because of the threat of a strike. I was really struck when I heard Barry O'Leary, chief executive officer of IDA Ireland, say the prospect of an ESB strike was damaging Ireland's international reputation. If we cannot guarantee the supply of basic services such as water and electricity, how can we credibly persuade investors to do business here? I know that in recent years Minister has put in a huge amount of work into doing exactly this, trying to get investors to do business here.

Artificial interruptions to the supply of water and electricity should not be tolerated. The continued supply of these basic utility services should not be allowed to become a bargaining chip in an industrial dispute. A threat to these services is not tolerated in many countries in Europe and I do not see why we should allow it to happen in this country. Historically, the trade union movement has made a valuable contribution to the improvement of the rights of workers and the conditions under which they work. The role of trade unions is recognised in Article 40.6.1° of the Constitution and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which protect the right of freedom of association. The Bill does not seek to extinguish or modify these rights, something I have to say so often. On the Order of Business today Senator David Cullinane did not appear to understand this. The Bill is not understood by many people.

The right to strike is an important part of the armoury of trade unions and can be a very effective tool. However, in the context of basic services such as water and electricity supplies, it can be a very blunt tool. I say this because when workers in electricity or water supply companies down tools and go on strike, their actions do not just upset their employer but can also have a direct and dramatic impact on the everyday lives of people and businesses across the country. As legislators, we should seek to balance the right of workers to strike in a disruptive manner against the right of individuals to a supply of water and electricity. The aim of the Bill is to strike that balance in a proportionate and minimal way. The Bill seeks to provide for the security of supply of mains water and electricity and it seeks to achieve this in two ways. First, it would make it an offence for a person to induce another to cause an interruption to the supply of a critical utility service. Second, it would also make it an offence for a person to engage in industrial action which causes an interruption to the supply of a critical utility service. It not seek to remove the right to strike, the right to picket or the right to take industrial action. Let there be no doubt about this and I cannot say it often enough. Strikes can still take place, but what the Bill would require is that strike cover be put in place to protect the continued supply of water and electricity. I would expect the supply of electricity and water to be maintained on a day-to-day basis with a skeleton staff. What I am saying in the Bill is that staff in businesses which supply electricity or water are free to go on strike; however, when they do go on strike, they would have to provide strike cover – a minimum level of cover – so as to maintain basic services.

The principle of safeguarding an essential service is already provided for under legislation. Section 18(3) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 goes much further than the Bill; it prohibits gardaí from becoming members of a trade union. Section 59(1) of the Act makes it an offence for a person to induce a garda to withhold his or her services. Although now repealed, the Electricity (Special Provisions) Act 1966 provided for an outright ban on strikes and pickets in the ESB. The Bill is far less draconian than that legislation.

In many member states there is an obligation on strikers, under law, to maintain a minimum level of service while on strike. Legislation to protect critical utility services has been enacted in Belgium, France, Germany and Greece. Other countries have gone even further to protect utility and other services. In Bulgaria strikers must not impact on the supply of gas, electricity, public transport, broadcasting and telephone services. In Hungary strikers are required to ensure there is no disruption to transport and telecommunications services and electricity, gas and water supplies.

A similar, broad approach is taken to the protection of services in Portugal and Romania. There is a wide range of steps being taken in other countries. There are many precedents for what I am proposing in the Bill, although my approach is far more timid than that adopted in a number of other countries.
The need for this legislation is even more compelling than it was. I am pleased that the threatened ESB strike has been averted, but this legislation is no less important this week than it was last week. We are looking to the future. I have been working on the Bill for some time and it is important to understand it is not just an immediate reaction to the danger of a strike. I have long held the view that the continued supply of critical services should not be used as a bargaining tool in industrial disputes. The resolution of the ESB dispute does not alter that principle but actually serves to demonstrate just how vulnerable the critical utilities are to the whims of trade union leaders. We need to act now to protect critical services from the effects of strike action that might take place in the months and years ahead.

The Bill does not seek to remove the rights to strike, picket or take industrial action. What it would require is the arrangement of strike cover to ensure electricity and water supplies would not be interrupted during strikes. The Bill seeks to balance carefully the right of workers to strike and the right of customers to key utilities. The result would be a reasonable and proportionate approach. I, therefore, urge the Minister to support the Bill. I look forward to a debate in order that we can understand the issues involved.

We have had nurses strikes during the years, but when nurses go on strike, they ensure no lives are endangered. They ensure there is a skeleton staff to run essential services to keep people alive. They do not want to be responsible for deaths. This is a very good example of what we are proposing in the Bill. A skeleton staff should stay back to ensure electricity and water would continue to be supplied because they are essential. There are those living at home who would die if they did not have electricity or water during strikes. In the future, when a strike occurs in the areas I have outlined – I would love to believe there would never be a strike as we have become so good at avoiding them – a skeleton staff should ensure the two essentials, water and electricity, would continue to be provided. It is a life and death issue. Therefore, the Bill would have a long-term effect. The threatened strike this week drew attention to the issue, but the onus is on us in this House to ensure we have legislation in place that stipulates we should not endanger lives. I urge the Minister to support it.